Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Being aggrieved by the said recovery certificate, the respondent nos.1 to 3 filed a Revision Application No.212 of 2001 on 4 th April, 2001 before the respondent no.5. The said borrowers also challenged the said recovery certificate by filing Writ Petition bearing no.2131 of 2001 before this court. This court by order dated 30 th April, 2001 directed the Divisional Joint Registrar to treat the deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- paid by the purchasers towards the compliance of Section 154(2A) of the MCS Act and further directed to deal with the said revision application filed by the borrowers in due process of law. The Special Recovery Officer attached to the lender passed an order attaching the said mortgage property belonging to respondent no.2 on 2nd May, 2001. On 18th August, 2001 the lender took possession of the said property together with vacant possession of the third floor, which was occupied by the respondent nos. 2 and 3, who are partners of the respondent no.1.

33. In his alternate submission, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the auction purchasers that though specific objection was raised by the auction purchasers about the maintainability of the said revision application filed by the borrowers on the ground that the borrowers had not complied with the mandatory requirements of deposit of 15% of the successful bid amount in compliance with section 154(2A) of the said M.C.S. Act, the Divisional Joint Registrar did not bother to consider the said objection raised by the auction purchasers as well as the lenders and allowed the said revision application filed by the borrowers contrary to the well settled principles of law laid by the Supreme Court and this Court and also contrary to section 154(2A) of the said M.C.S. Act. Compliance of section 154(2A) of the said M.C.S. Act is mandatory. The order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar thereby entertaining the revision application filed by the borrowers is Priya Soparkar 19 judgment in wp 572-14-c and wp 650-14-o totally without jurisdiction and illegal.

40. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.6999 of 2013 on the issue of mandatory deposit of 50% of the bid amount under section 154(2A) of the said M.C.S. Act in which this Court had followed the principles laid down in the judgments reported in case of M/s.Puran Automobiles vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2012) 5 All MR 145, The Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Limited & Anr. vs. Dhillion P. Shah & Ors., 2004(1) All M.R. 25 in support of his submission that even if an auction proceedings are challenged in a revision application, compliance of mandatory requirement of 50% under section 154(2A) of the said M.C.S. Act is mandatory. He submits that though such an objection was subsequently raised by the auction purchasers as well as by the lenders, the same has not been dealt with by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar in the impugned order.

73. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar indicates that though the learned authority has referred to the objections of the maintainability of the revision application filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 in the impugned order and also referred to the judgment of this court in case of Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Limited, Mumbai (supra) referred to and relied upon by the petitioners, the Divisional Joint Registrar in the impugned order has not dealt with the said objections about the maintainability of the revision application itself for non-compliance under section 154(2A) of the MCS Act. However, while passing an order dated 9 th February, 2012 condoning the delay on the application of the respondent nos. 1 to 3, the learned Divisional Joint Registrar had erroneously held that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 had already challenged the auction sale and therefore the question of applicability of section 154(2A) of the MCS Act would not arise.